Rishikesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1126 of 2015 =========================================================== Rishikesh Kumar, Son of Dinanath Singh, Resident of Village- Dilawarpur East P.S. Bidupur, District Vaishali.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Director, Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi.

3. The Examination Controller, Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi having its Regional Office 2nd Floor Vishcoman Bhawan, Patna.

4. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.

5. The Deputy Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna

6. The Regional Deputy Director, Primary Education, Muzaffarpur.

7. The District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur.

8. The District Programme Officer, Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, Vaishali at Hajipur.

9. The District Education Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur.

10. The Block Education Officer, Bidupur, Vaishali.

11. The Principal, Teachers Training College, Diggi, Vaishali at Hajipur. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

For the Respondent/s :

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 16-07-2018 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State has assisted the Court.

2. The petitioner had moved the Court for the following reliefs:

Patna High Court CWJC No.1126 of 2015 dt.16-07-2018 2/3 "(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing to the Respondents authority to sent the petitioner for enrichment training schedule by the Education Department as the petitioner having requisite qualification to include his name in Enrichment Training.

(ii) For further direction to the RespondentsAuthority to give pay scale of the petitioner of trained teacher from the date when the other similarly situated person has been sent for Enrichment Training who was appointed even after the petitioner.

(iii) For further direction to the RespondentsAuthority to hold an enquiry that as to why the name of the petitioner has not been sent for Enrichment Training (Samvardhan Training) as the petitioner's name was already included in the list of candidates who have successfully completed 3 modules and accordingly take action against those persons.

(iv) For further direction to the RespondentsAuthority to give all facilities to the petitioner as similarly situated candidates have been given on the basis of the Enrichment Training and be further directed to provide facility to the petitioner for Enrichment Training.

(v) And for any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the eye of law."

Patna High Court CWJC No.1126 of 2015 dt.16-07-2018 3/3

3. From the stand in the counter affidavit, it transpires that he has already been sent for training in the year 2013.

4. In view thereof, the writ petition being misconceived, stands dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Anjani/- AFR/NAFR U